That was fun adventure for you and fun to watch for me,I would say. Students like me struggle to find topic and write a single paper even though yours was not a serious or proper paper I would say it helped me relinquish my anxiety about writing paper.
Thh, going viral with something like this doesn’t necessarily mean you did something wrong—it’s just that people on the internet often believe everything they see without fact-checking. In other words great social experiment
First I thought it was a dishonest disturb of scientific work, with all of unclarified participation of AI contributors, Tweet sources and everything on it, but now reading your original intention, I think it was a good exercise for everyone to benchmark their own scientific method literacy. Together with Apple's original paper, it got me thinking, possibly thousands of others, even more deeply the exact problems with LRM claims and AI hype.
I think the reactions to your work illuminates issues that need illuminating. For me, AI slop is the biggest problem given that neither AI nor real people seem to be sensitive to it.
Hey, you didn't submit it to a journal so people have no reason to get angry at you tbh. It was cool and you got a point across that research coming from high-end places like Apple can still be badly designed and executed.
I think the big problem was submitting to arXiv. Other than April Fools day, arXiv submissions are generally not jokes, and especially considering that some of the critiques were very real, it's not that unreasonable that the whole thing got taken seriously. It also seems fairly likely that your posting violates the arXiv community guidelines, so you might end up banned from the platform.
I have, unfortunately, been asked to remove Claude as an author. But both of the other joke papers I link to are on arXiv I think! I agree that, given this paper mixed serious points in, this was a mistake
" it's not that unreasonable that the whole thing got taken seriously"
Yes it is ... it highlights people's immense intellectual dishonesty and that they are driven by ideology and self-interest, not an honest search for the truth. Whatever "real" critiques there are in this paper, they are not presented in such a way that anyone should credit them and treat them as authoritative, which is exactly what those touting this paper did.
I am not arguing that the paper should have been touted as authoritative. My point is simply that the paper is written in the form of a serious critique, contains at least one mathematically rigorous genuine critique, and was shared on a platform designed for researchers to disseminate authentic research articles. It should then surprise no one that the paper is not immediately recognized as a joke, even by some scientists in the field (as evidenced by the social media reactions). Calling this "intellectually dishonest" is, well, ordinarily dishonest. The idea that anyone who knows anything would immediately clock this article as a joke is absurd.
That was fun adventure for you and fun to watch for me,I would say. Students like me struggle to find topic and write a single paper even though yours was not a serious or proper paper I would say it helped me relinquish my anxiety about writing paper.
Listening to your wife is always the n.1 rule, ALWAYS! :-D
So.... Is it a joke or not a joke, is it trolling or not trolling?
yes
You either need to:
1. See a whole lot more shit-quality arxiv submissions because you obviously haven't seen enough (because those are laughable too) or
2. Look up what shitposting actually is
Thh, going viral with something like this doesn’t necessarily mean you did something wrong—it’s just that people on the internet often believe everything they see without fact-checking. In other words great social experiment
got a laugh out of me - keep doing ya thing brotha
I have learned to clearly indicate "this is satire" in everything satirical I write, because there are always some who don't get the joke.
But then you don't get to call out the dishonest imbeciles who present it as evidence for their harebrained beliefs.
You did the internet a solid favor by exposing hypocrisy
First I thought it was a dishonest disturb of scientific work, with all of unclarified participation of AI contributors, Tweet sources and everything on it, but now reading your original intention, I think it was a good exercise for everyone to benchmark their own scientific method literacy. Together with Apple's original paper, it got me thinking, possibly thousands of others, even more deeply the exact problems with LRM claims and AI hype.
I think the reactions to your work illuminates issues that need illuminating. For me, AI slop is the biggest problem given that neither AI nor real people seem to be sensitive to it.
Hey, you didn't submit it to a journal so people have no reason to get angry at you tbh. It was cool and you got a point across that research coming from high-end places like Apple can still be badly designed and executed.
I think the big problem was submitting to arXiv. Other than April Fools day, arXiv submissions are generally not jokes, and especially considering that some of the critiques were very real, it's not that unreasonable that the whole thing got taken seriously. It also seems fairly likely that your posting violates the arXiv community guidelines, so you might end up banned from the platform.
I have, unfortunately, been asked to remove Claude as an author. But both of the other joke papers I link to are on arXiv I think! I agree that, given this paper mixed serious points in, this was a mistake
" it's not that unreasonable that the whole thing got taken seriously"
Yes it is ... it highlights people's immense intellectual dishonesty and that they are driven by ideology and self-interest, not an honest search for the truth. Whatever "real" critiques there are in this paper, they are not presented in such a way that anyone should credit them and treat them as authoritative, which is exactly what those touting this paper did.
I am not arguing that the paper should have been touted as authoritative. My point is simply that the paper is written in the form of a serious critique, contains at least one mathematically rigorous genuine critique, and was shared on a platform designed for researchers to disseminate authentic research articles. It should then surprise no one that the paper is not immediately recognized as a joke, even by some scientists in the field (as evidenced by the social media reactions). Calling this "intellectually dishonest" is, well, ordinarily dishonest. The idea that anyone who knows anything would immediately clock this article as a joke is absurd.